Circulation and Permanence

by Uriel Fiori

in the most abstract sense, there’s only a single problem: the diagonal between what changes and what stays forever the same. the cycle and the 1.
the point of this tug of war is the war itself. if any side wins, it loses. there’s clearly a tension that has to be sustained if productivity is to occur.
much as they are opposed, both sides are defined and ultimately fed by one another. their repulsion and interdependence define a circuit of creation, a trancendental self.
caught in between pincers, the aspects appear individually, as monads. on the left, an uncontrolled and homogeneous flow, devoid of characteristics and distinctions. even slime has borders, but this hasn’t. on the right, the empty form of survival, a cage of steel with golden linings. only nothing escapes this black box of fate.
like a step-motor, the circuit ratchets, producing time. at each new turn of the spiral, the flow fills up new boxes, that try as hard as they can to control them. the empty boxes are never born, those overflown die. the assembled machinery lives long enough to see the clock tick once again.

“we want change!” – “we want to survive!”
impulses now clearly familiar. from a godly point of view, it’s always been this way. unrealistic or limited. utopian and doomed.
it’s early 21st century, and maybe the definitions sound weirder than they would 150 years ago. does the Left still want to release flows of formless potency? the the Right still want to dam these flows in the Old Ways? the answer seems much less to be “no” than sheer doubt.
as the world blockchains itself into computational existence, each side is turning into each other, without ever meeting halfway. what does anyone want, before the gyre turns, and fortune is foretold?
Left Accelerationism wants to invent the future, to repurpose platforms spontaneously produced for profit into machines for utopia. it wants control rooms, and controllers. it wants a command economy, for… liberty?
Right Accelerationism is still a question mark. to the extent it exists, it hasn’t been formalized uniquely. a swarm of internal fragmentations present themselves, teeming with purposes. boxes within boxes. on certain edges, control is even more valued than in the Left. on others… a whisper.
it would be unwise to reduce the circuit that is being produced to the political dialectics between those poles. it’s much more likely that the political poles are a symptom of a much deeper war, of mutation and selection, of flows and boxes. what’s certain is that a thing is being produced obscurely, and is moving in the shadows of the public arena.
to explore what it is, its open duality, its inexpectability, its obscurity, it’s necessary to step back. to remove all conditions and veils, to disentangle oneself from the pincers – which is to say, from the very sense of “oneself.” it’s necessary to remove the screen, stare deeply into the Abyss, and plunge into it.
what happens next is the unknown.

Diffract this //

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.